On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.Interleaving.On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then considerinteractions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be alow level where the many are only one and thus the superposition ofstate remains. It can be shown that at the separation level therewill also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will bewhat decoherence describes. But this high level version is subjectto GR "adjustments" and so will not be nice and well behaved.OK, but I do not assume any physical "theory" in the derivation thatphysics is a branch of arithmetic.Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as"perceptions"? Could the "perceptions", however they may be define,include some means to distinguish one entity from another withinthose "perceptions". A crude "physics" theory might be equivalent tosome method for an observer to make predictions of the content ofits "perceptions", assuming some form of "memory" is possible...What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.I do not think that comp can be empirically "refuted" in theexperimental sense of "hard science"! It addresses questions thatare deeper than physics.

`Yes, it addresses theological questions, like the technological`

`reincarnation, and the arithmetical "reincarnation". It is much larger`

`than physics. But the point is that physics is entirely part of that`

`theology, making theology indirectly testable, and the physics, is`

`entirely testable. That's the whole point: comp makes theology into an`

`"hard science", thanks to its relation with computer science and`

`mathematical logic.`

`Of course the physics intuitively extracted in UDA is not tractable,`

`but then the translation of UDA in arithmetic, using the classical`

`theory of knowledge (that we recover with the idea of Theaetetus in`

`arithmetic) gives the propositional physics, which up to now is shown`

`to be a quantum logic. We can test it to see if it gives a quantum`

`computer in the physical neighborhood of the machine. The math are`

`just hard, but the question is precisely formulated in purely`

`arithmetical terms.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.